Pierre Brien

[Speech From The Throne, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has given us a long argument on behalf of the positive role the new technologies will play in the life of tomorrow. That is very true.

Regardless of where we live, whether Latulipe, Sainte-Germaine, Montreal, Toronto, or anywhere else, access to technologies like the Internet brings us all closer together. We have access to a great deal of information. In theory, this gives many people an equal opportunity.

In reality, however, a problem is becoming more and more obvious. I would like to ask the minister's opinion on it Among other things, with telephone deregulation, which is not without its drawbacks, we are beginning to realize that, within a few years, the basic rate for service in areas serviced by certain telephone companies will be close to $40, while it will be half that in other areas.

Since access to the Internet requires a line and connection, is the minister not concerned that people in some areas will have to pay twice what others are paying to be hooked up to this technology?

Municipalities and schools will be connected, certainly, but more and more people want access at home as well. Some of them will have access via their phone line, while others will have an Internet line as part of their basic service. According to the latest CRTC decision, Internet service will have to be part of the basic service.

Is the minister concerned by the fact that the charges for basic telephone services will be twice as high in some areas as in others, depending on the company providing service? In my region, basic service has risen to over $30, while it is around the $20 mark in other regions. In two years, it will be $40 for us, and $20 for them.

Is the minister not concerned about this trend? Does the Minister of Industry intend to intervene, and not just to rely on CRTC decisions in this area?

[Air Transportation, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when a law is being amended in the midst of things, it cannot be said that no one has intervened in the process, no one would believe it.

The problems of air transportation cannot be resolved simply by a takeover.

How can the government justify in the face of public interest such a lack of vision and leadership in an area as sensitive for both the public and the economy as air transportation?

[Air Transportation, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Onex/Air Canada business is an amazing saga orchestrated by the Minister of Transport.

He has in fact permitted Onex to remodel air transportation and is allowing a handful of shareholders to determine the future of the industry as a whole.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that he has abandoned the fate of the airline industry to a handful of speculators who do not have a mandate to determine the future of air transportation?

[Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-4, an act to implement the Agreement among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America concerning Co-operation on the Civil International Space Station and to make related amendments to other acts.

Here we are at the end of a millennium, and when we stop to think about it, the rate of progress of space research and the discovery of space has been phenomenal, especially in recent years. From the moment man first started to go into space, it was only a matter of decades before a space station was built, as well as an orbiting station, permitting astronauts to go into space for months at a time to conduct tests and experiments.

Obviously that advances our research considerably and provides opportunities for important discoveries. It also raises—we have to be honest about it—questions by people about the cost of these projects and results.

It remains very difficult to measure, but it is clear that the effects are very significant. The potential for discoveries there remains infinite.

The research done on the orbiting station will be carried out in a specific climate of research in which the law of gravity does not apply in the same way and where the work will be done in a context other than that on Earth. Therefore, it is very clear that this opens windows of opportunity for incredible research.

In addition, all of the technology needed to build a station, to do this work, to go into space, is clearly becoming transmittable and reusable for other purposes, I would say in a more down to Earth fashion.

In order to put into perspective the progress that has been made possible by this use and discovery of space, let us look at the whole field of communications. It would be hard to imagine how information could be moved rapidly without all those satellites we now have.

A great deal of money had to be invested in the technology for launching these satellites, putting them in service, recovering them if necessary, ensuring they are operating properly, determining their lifespans, and so on.

Now, a new window has opened with the international space station, the lifespan of which is predicted at ten years or so, although according to some sources, it could be much longer than that. It must be remembered that the MIR station was expected to last about five years, but was in service for over ten. It is fairly obvious therefore that the space station will last longer than the predicted ten years.

The involvement of the Government of Canada has been considerable, compared to our country's financial capacity. Clearly, the main contribution comes essentially from the U.S., which plays the lead role in this project. Russia also is heavily involved, which raises questions about the future, knowing the very hard times Russia is going through financially.

Obviously, the initial participation required of them was much greater than it will be in the future, but there are still some grey areas, particularly because of Russia's role and its financial difficulties, which are raising some questions.

Assembly has now started and we are very, very proud that a fellow Quebecer went on the mission and played a part—I am referring to Julie Payette—and we want to congratulate her on her amazing career. We are very proud of everything she has done.

Nor would we wish to forget another Quebec astronaut, Marc Garneau, who also went into space, as well as the Canadian astronauts, including those who will soon help to install the orbital station's Canadarm, which will play a key role in assembly operations. A Canadian system will also play a pivotal role in the repair and maintenance of the orbital station.

So, even though our participation is modest and scaled to what we can do as Quebecers and Canadians, we can take pride in contributing to a project such as this one, which is furthering the development of technology. No one knows yet how significant the discoveries made at the station will be.

With all these partnerships, the next step is to adopt some very down to Earth legislation, such as this bill stipulating which criminal law will apply in the case of an incident, or offence as it would become, inside the orbital station. This brings us to the question of which legislation will apply in space. This is one of the issues addressed by Bill C-4.

I also wish to point out that Bill C-4 flows from an agreement signed by several countries that appears as a schedule to the bill. In this connection, however, I have one criticism to make of the government. Even though we are in favour of the bill, it is still a bit regrettable that these agreements were not approved by parliament.

Since we support the bill, we therefore cannot say that the agreement should not have been debated in this place. It should have been approved by the House of Commons and not simply signed.

The Liberal tendency in this area since they have been in government is somewhat deplorable. Moreover, my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry has introduced a private member's bill, C-214, the purpose of which is to ensure that treaties are passed and ratified by parliament. Clearly we would have liked this to have been the case for Bill C-4.

To describe the contents of the treaty appended to this bill as its schedule, I could list the signatory states. schedule Obviously, there is the Government of Canada, and the governments of the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, all of these being member states of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Russian Federation and the United States of America.

In all, there are about fifteen signatories. The agreement was signed nearly two years ago, and calls for its terms to be implemented within two years of initial signature, and for the necessary legislative measures to be passed within two years.

At the present time, not all countries have initiated the process. Russia is one of these, which is why I referred just now to questions and concerns being raised about its future role in the space station. There are already very specific agreements with Russia; the partnership is not the same as with the other member states. Russia has its own space in the space station.

For example, Canada's laboratory time will be a percentage of the non-Russian space. The Russians have their own space, their own module, laboratory and equipment. There is, however, an agreement on co-operation between the Russians and the other partners, but Russia still represents a potential cause of delay because of its participation and the related funding.

The articles of this agreement—I will not read all of it, as members will find it appended to the bill—first define the purpose and scope of the bill.

Subsequently, they set out the international rights and obligations. Definitions are given. The following are also mentioned: cooperating agencies, registration, jurisdiction, controls, ownership of elements and equipment—which must be defined in such a partnership—management, detailed design and project development, station utilization, as well as operation.

There are also references to rules governing the crews, transportation, telecommunications relating to the orbiting station, project evolution, funding, which in all projects, is a key element, a cross-waiver of liability—the countries have agreed to sign such a waiver—and so on. Then we move on to the sections on customs, a convention on responsibility, data and goods and exchange and the conditions for withdrawing from the agreement, should a member ever decided to withdraw.

There are other sections on intellectual property, since this is very important where research is concerned. In space, there is a notion of intellectual property which may be debated and become the subject of litigation on occasion. However, many applications of research done in space will be used in additional research on Earth. Discoveries will be made there for basic research too, which will find application in other research projects that will be carried out here, back on Earth.

It must also be understood that, even though the astronauts will be there for periods of between three and six months, this is a short time, since research is being carried out over the longer term. Some research will be done there, tested and carried out, but it will be developed much further back on Earth.

There are also provisions on criminal justice. This is what I was talking about earlier and they are to be found in the bill as well. The measures on criminal justice pertain to any incidents that might occur on board the orbiting station. It is fairly straightforward. If ever a Canadian astronaut were to commit an offence, he would be subject to Canadian law, except in the case of homicide.

In the case of a sponsored astronaut, such as a Brazilian sponsored by the United States, American law would apply. That is our understanding of the bill, anyway. There are also sections on the entry into force, amendments, and operative effect between the parties.

That about sums up what is in the agreement signed almost two years ago. As 1999 draws to a close, its adoption is near.

Since some time has passed, the signed agreement probably could have been introduced here first and formally adopted, after which Bill C-4, which establishes the related measures, could have been passed. Parliamentarians could thus have commented on the obligations with which they agreed and those with which they did not agree.

We are not challenging the obligations. We are saying that we do not like the precedent, which has denied the House an opportunity to comment. It is true that we are having our say now with respect to the agreement included in the schedule to the bill, but the bill per se has to do with its own clauses. The agreement as such is contained in the schedule.

Earlier, I mentioned costs and the involvement of the federal government in the orbital station. The space agency itself has an annual budget of about $300 million. This is the funding the agency receives from the government.

Here, we are talking about a forecast of $1.4 billion. One could always argue about the spinoffs, but it is believed that they could reach $6 billion and include some 70,000 jobs, on a yearly basis, for the duration of the project. That is a lot of money and a lot of jobs.

Even if the spinoffs are not as great as anticipated, we are still talking about significant amounts of money that would help businesses, in Quebec and in Canada, achieve some degree of success. Quebec is doing rather well in the aerospace industry. The space agency, which is located in Saint-Hubert, is a very good thing for the aerospace industry.

The work done by companies in these sectors and the contracts that they can get with regard to orbiting station projects allow them to develop a critical mass of researchers and people to do the work. It also allows these companies to use their products for civilian applications.

Some members alluded to numerous technological, medical or scientific achievements and discoveries resulting from initiatives that were originally funded through aerospace projects, whether past ones or the one that we are discussing.

Very clearly, we will support this bill. I know that discussions took place to proceed quickly. We certainly have no intention of delaying the adoption of Bill C-4. However, it would be good to still have the legislation go through the normal process, in other words, to have it referred to a committee after second reading, so that members can get answers to their questions.

Some of us here took part in Space Agency and departmental training sessions on the bill. The Standing Committee on Industry committee will be able to go into the matter further, examining everything related to it, such as timeframes and budgets. It is normal after all to take the time needed in order to ensure that it is passed.

It is therefore normal for the bill to go through the regular stages. If the government had wanted the bill passed more quickly, it ought to have convened the House earlier.

I will conclude now by telling hon. members that we will be voting in favour of Bill C-4 on second reading. We also intend to support it on third reading. There are a few questions we will want to go into in committee, including the meeting of deadlines. We will have the opportunity to discuss matters with those who appear before the committee, particularly Space Agency and departmental officials. This bill will eventually come back to us for the third reading stage. I believe the committee will ultimately move to accept it and return it to the House. It is our intention to again support it.

My congratulations to all those who work on projects relating to the development of the space station, whether Quebecers, Canadians, Americans or others. Who knows, one day one of us, or a friend or family member, or one of our constituents, may benefit from the discoveries resulting from these research projects. Science will show us all the potential future effects of this undertaking, and I must say that the possibilities are endless.

In conclusion, I wish to again indicate our intention to vote in favour of Bill C-4.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the answer to that is quite simple: it is to favour its friends. There is no other reason. The government is far more sensitive to political affinities than to regional economic development, particularly in Quebec.

I am happy my colleague raised this issue. In the past, this section was used to prevent Quebec portfolios from acquiring too many shares. In Quebec, we have a number of development tools such as the General Investment Corporation, the Caisse de dépôt et placement, the Fonds de solidarité, major players that can become significant shareholders in various projects. The federal government did not like the 10% rule in some cases. Sometimes it suited the government, sometimes it did not, but we will have to see the consequences this will have in the future.

How will it be possible now to justify this in the other sectors still subject to this rule? If the government wanted a debate on whether the 10% rule is important or not, we could have had that debate outside the context of the Onex, Air Canada and Canadian transaction.

But the government now wants to change the rules in mid-game, in a specific case, to favour one player in particular. This is totally unacceptable. That is why the House must support the motion to reaffirm that the rules will not be changed.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we are debating today a motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois asking the House of Commons to reaffirm its desire to maintain a provision of the act limiting the ownership by any company or person to 10 per cent of the voting shares of a corporation, especially in the case at hand of the eventual purchase of Air Canada by Onex.

Very seldom do we see a government intervene in a battle for control between private sector corporations by loading the dices as it has done in the present case.

Nobody will succeed in convincing us today that the government was not in league with Onex from the beginning.

Let us look at each stage of the process leading to the present situation—Onex' last offer was made only an hour and a half ago—and see how the actions of Onex and the government add up to what the member for Roberval described during today's Oral Question Period as “the crater we are inexorably headed for, which is the acceptance of the Onex project”.

Incidentally, Onex is the company which will take control, and which has a particular interest in this acquisition. One wonders about its long term intentions for the companies that it is trying to buy, Canadian Airlines and Air Canada.

It is very strange to note that, on the subject of these two firms, Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, the one in the greater financial difficulty today is Canadian Airlines.

If no changes are made at this point, Canadian Airlines' ability to carry on business in the coming quarters is very limited. It will probably have major problems—and this will not be the first time, because it has already had them—and, surprisingly, on a number of occasions, this very government, the federal government has come to its aid. Whether by providing foreign routes, or by providing funding when American Airlines arrived on the scene the first time, the federal government has always helped to bail out Canadian Airlines.

This time, however, it is becoming a bit too indecent to artificially support the company. Accordingly, a new player has arrived—Onex—which intends to join Canadian, with American Airlines behind the scenes, to take control of Air Canada.

Air Canada is the more profitable of the two companies, is the only potentially profitable one of the two and is being taken over by the other because of this intervention.

Even if last minute information gives the impression of a certain number of parameters being changed, it is not in fact the case when we look at the long term, the change to the rule of 10% is not insignificant in what is going on. It serves to give the advantage to the player or the hand holding the strings behind Canadian and behind Onex—American Airlines.

The minister is making fine speeches about “allowing the shareholders to speak, and when a definitive scenario has been decided upon—”, that is what the government is saying, “when it is all over, we are going to look after the interests of consumers and everyone else.” The government is setting out broad principles.

At one point, this government suspended part of the Competition Act and decided or announced that the 10% limit would be changed. All of a sudden and as if by chance, the very week of the deadline—the companies wishing to make a take-over have until midnight tonight—the minister announced his intention to review the 10% rule and demonstrate a very open mind.

It is hard to believe that the people from Onex, who seem to have a great familiarity with the people in the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, who are great pals, were not kept informed of the government's intentions.

Of course that would be very hard to prove, but the actions, the outcome and the progress of this matter demonstrate very clearly that there is a very close collaboration between certain people in government—those with influence and decision makers, anyway—and the people from Onex.

Where will all this take us? It will lead to a situation where the strongest of the two companies will find itself in a weaker position. In this case, Quebec, where Air Canada is well established, will suffer more job losses because of the federal government's involvement.

This also makes us wonder about a number of other issues in terms of the future, if the airline industry were to become predominantly influenced and controlled by a foreign company such as American Airlines, for example.

I am convinced that air transportation in the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region is not a top priority for American Airlines. What will happen to our regions?

We Bloc Quebecois members represent the regions of Quebec. I want to clarify something. Here in Ottawa, people talk about Quebec as if it were a single region. But the regions of Quebec include the North Shore, Lower St. Lawrence, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Abitibi—Témiscamingue regions. When we talk about regional air transportation, we are not referring to Montreal-Toronto, but to air transportation to and from our regional centres.

We are very concerned. Earlier, my colleagues mentioned that airports had been taken over by the communities. If passenger and freight volumes go down, it will change the cost-effectiveness figures for the organizations that manage air traffic.

There are many things to consider. I am not even talking about airfares, which have already increased drastically since deregulation, with the result that it is now very difficult for people living in regions to travel at an affordable price. A traveller who did not plan his or her trip between Rouyn and Montreal well ahead of time to take advantage of a major rebate is looking at a round trip fare of more than $600.

By contrast, those flying out of Montreal or Toronto can travel quite far for the same $600. There is something indecent about this, particularly when you think that, because of the specializing that is taking place in the health sector, patients travel by plane wherever they can get treatment, which generates huge costs.

Regional development probably does not mean a lot to members opposite. It makes me laugh when I hear the Liberal member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik congratulate and thank the Minister of Transport for his work. He made this statement in a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport.

I have no congratulations for the minister, far from it, and particularly not with regard to this issue. This same minister who closed the military college in Saint-Jean—let us not forget that—is now working to ensure that Quebec will come out a loser in this biased process in which the federal government has a hand.

There is obviously some disagreement within the government on this matter, and it is perhaps worth pointing out. There are some interesting quotations. In the October 26 edition of Le Devoir , Marc Lalonde, who is cut from the same cloth as the members opposite, had this to say:

It is odd that a public bid for a hostile takeover of the country's major air carrier should be launched on the assumption that the existing legislation will be changed to allow that takeover to occur. In all my years in the public sector, I have never seen a more disturbing challenge to the rights of parliamentarians.

God knows, Mr. Lalonde has been around for a long time. So this is one of their friends speaking, not a nasty separatist from Quebec. He says that the process has been biased from the start, because one of the players has the advantage of privileged information.

As for the fact that it will be possible to amend legislation, if necessary, what message does this send for other private transactions? The message it sends is this: “Stay on the good side of the members opposite and, if you are having trouble with a particular issue, worry not because we will take care of the legislation in due course, depending on our interests, the party coffers, and 56 other variables”.

There are members from Quebec in this government and others elsewhere who can also see through this transaction, and I am certain that the lobby was limited to a few government insiders. The policy must be changed, and the government must not agree to change the rules of the game mid-stream to the advantage of one player and one carrier.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the previous Progressive Conservative government, which brought us deregulation and astronomical increases in fares, including for our region, while promising us that this deregulation would promote competition and thus lower fares, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is not worried.

He must know that the basic fare for a flight from Rouyn to Montreal and back is over $600. In addition, does the fact that an American company, namely American Airlines, will indirectly become the owner, and that this will be a quasi-monopoly, or just about, not worry him even more?

He should rise in his place and denounce the Onex proposal, which will have a disastrous impact on a region such as ours.

[Professional Sport, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the Minister of Industry, it is clear that the Canadian government will not be coming to the assistance of professional sports clubs. But yesterday the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport opened the door to indirect assistance.

My question is for the Minister of Industry. How does the minister explain the remarks of the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who continues to say that the government will provide indirect assistance for professional sports clubs? Whom are we to believe, the Minister of Industry or the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport?

[Telephone Service, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the CRTC refused to create a national access fund for residents served by Québec Téléphone and Télébec. According to the CRTC in its decision, these subscribers will have to face increases in basic telephone service rates.

The Minister of Industry has shown his insensitivity to rural communities in the past in the matter of parabolic antennae and is showing it again today in the case of rural telephone service.

Does the Minister recall that the Telecommunications Act provides that rural populations like urban ones are entitled to basic affordable telephone service and that he has the power to act and correct the situation?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was anxious to have an exchange of views with the Liberal member on this.

First of all, she spoke of law 101. Well, we are also going to tell her about politics 101, because she said that the Government of Quebec had been consulted. The fact that the Quebec bar association or the Conseil du Patronat spoke out in committee does not mean that the Government of Quebec was consulted. There is a difference between the Quebec bar association, the Conseil du Patronat, the CSN and the government.

The government is a different institution, one elected democratically by the people and representing Quebecers. That is my first point.

Second, she says we were wrong when we said that this was a provincial jurisdiction. I have here a letter from the Quebec bar association to the Minister of Industry, who is with us today, and will read something from the end of its third paragraph. She can discuss it with the bar association, since she is a member. The letter reads:

But the protection of personal information is based on provincial jurisdiction over property, under the civil code.

I would imagine that a nice little discussion between bar association colleagues will ensue, since it is the association's opinion that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

The letter is fairly recent, February 4, 1999. I imagine they took into consideration the British North America Act, which has been around for more than a hundred years.

Continuing with this letter, because it is most interesting, they go on to speak of practical application of the legislation. I quote:

This means that a considerable number of companies established in Quebec will from now on be subject to the federal legislation rather than the Quebec legislation, and this is not likely to make it any easier for members of the public seeking to find out what their rights are in this context of changing legislation. As well, Quebec-based businesses will be required to master a new system for the protection of personal information, one which differs considerably from the one in place in Quebec.

Returning to the phrase “a considerable number of companies established in Quebec will from now on be subject to the federal legislation rather than the Quebec legislation”, this means that they were previously subject to the Quebec legislation. Does the hon. member realize that there was no legal vacuum, as she seems to be implying, that it is not like everyone was urging the federal government to get involved and set up different rules?

I now come to the recommendation made by the Quebec bar, which supports that of the access to information commission and which provides that:

To avoid any confusion and ensure that Quebecers can continue to benefit from a comprehensive personal information protection program, we submit that Bill C-54—now Bill C-6—should be amended to provide expressly that the federal legislation will not apply to businesses governed by the Privacy Act in the private sector.

I can already see the hon. member getting ready to say “Yes, but what about those for whom that act would not apply?” Her friends from the bar added:

“We go even further. In our opinion, the bill should incorporate by reference the Quebec legislation, even in areas of federal jurisdiction, to avoid confusion, overlap and duplication in the legislation applied in Quebec”.

It comes from the Quebec bar, which represents lawyers. These are experts who looked at this legislation and told us that it will create chaos and make things extremely complicated. To avoid that, they propose a simple solution. But this government will never recognize the primacy of the Quebec law, even if it concerns the civil code, which makes us so distinct in the eyes of the federal government.

When the federal government defines Quebec's distinctive character, it usually points to two or three elements. The government includes as few elements as possible, but it usually mentions the civil code. Yet, with this legislation, it is not even prepared to recognize the civil code.

So, what does the member have to say to the Barreau? Not to us on this side, to the members across the way to her right and to your left, Mr. Speaker. What does she have to say to the Barreau du Québec, which is suggesting this should be the solution?

And, before concluding, I would like to come back to one point. She says: “Yes, but we will not be able to regulate out-of-province companies doing business in Quebec”. If that logic applied, how is the Government of Canada going to be able to regulate an American company doing business in Canada?

Using her logic, it could not, because she is saying that Quebec's legislation does not apply to a company holding information obtained in Quebec, if the company is based outside Quebec. So what is she going to do about an American company that obtains information here and holds it in the United States? If the Government of Canada can do it, why would Quebec not be able to do it for Canada?

There is something a bit illogical about what she is saying and I would like her to explain to me why she thinks Quebec cannot fully legislate this situation when, if this were true, the same logic would apply to Canada, which would be able to legislate in respect of American companies.

I would like her to explain this and to respond to the brief from the Barreau that I have just cited and which is very specific. If she wishes, I can give her a copy of the document.